Luke xxiii.33.

And when they were come to the place which is Jerusalem. called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the

nounced "hall,” signifies "sweet," denotes as soon as it is pronounced "hala,” 86 vinegar." The translator of St. Matthew's Gospel misunderstood the words of the original, but St. Mark has given the true account.

In this criticism, Michaelis may be considered as having refuted himself; for he tells us, (p. 151), that as the Hebrew original of St. Matthew is lost, a comparison can never be instituted between that and the Greek version: and this comparison ALONE can decide the question, if there is any variation between them. It must be observed in answer, it is not possible to ascertain certainly whether St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew or not.

Bishop Marsh has remarked, that the proposed Chaldee reading of Michaelis cannot possibly have given rise to the expression in St. Mark's text: neither is the construction of correct. Having pointed out the weakness of the other parts of Michaelis's criticism, the learned Bishop has proposed a similar elucidation upon the same principle of conjecture. He supposes that the original Chal

which means wine, was חמרא and that ; חמרא הליט במורא dee text was

.מרד to be mistaken for מורא,ceding instance

confused with ann, vinegar; and likewise *, myrrh, with 877, gall. In refutation of these hypotheses, Archbishop Laurence observes: "This strange confusion of words, whether attributable to a transcriber or translator, is greater than seems likely to have happened." Aware of the objection, Bishop Marsh afterwards proposes another illustration, and presumes that the Chaldee text ran thus, 'an, which may be rendered, vinum conditum myrrhâ. Yet he adds, that as 7, when a participle, has the signification of turbidum fieri, as well as that of vinum, when a substantive: and as D, when a substantive, means acetum, as well as conditum, when a participle, upon this construction the words may be translated, acetum turbatum felle; still supposing, as in the pre"With respect however to this suggestion," says Archbishop Laurence, " may it not be fairly questioned whether in ancient Chaldee really signifies "vinegar." No such meaning is affixed to it in Buxtorf's Lexicon Chaldaic et Syriac, nor in the Syrochald. Diction. annexed to the Antwerp Bible. In the elder Buxtorf's Lexicon Chaldaic Talmudic et Rabbinic, this sense is indeed given to it; nevertheless, not as the ancient Chaldee sense, but as one of a more recent date, as one to be found only in the Rabboth and the Jerusalem Talmud. The time of the compilation of the Rabboth has been fixed by the Jews to about the year 300 after Christ; but some Christians place it at a later period. Wolf observes, "Fatendum hoc est, pro antiquitate rei alicujus demonstrandâ non satis tuto ad Rabboth provocari posse, cum nullo argumento constet, quo tempore hæc vel illa narratio aut expositio subnata sit (a).”

The Jerusalem Talmud is said by Buxtorf to have been composed about the year 230, or, according to others, about the year 270, (Wolfii Bib. Hebræa, vol. ii. p. 683); but Lightfoot, in his Hora Heb. in Evang. Matthæi, contends, that it was not written until the fourth century (b).

Schoetgen also, among the apparent contradictions of the New Testament,

(a) Bibliotheca Hebræa, vol. ii. p. 1426, art. Rabboth. (b) Cent. Chorograph. c. 81. p. 144.

Jerusalem..

:nalefactors, one on the right hand, and the other

on the left;

and Jesus in the midst.

b

John xix. 18.

And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Mark xv. 28.

b Isa. lili. 12. And he was numbered with the transgressors. And Pilate wrote a title 24,

John xix. 19.

enumerates this between St. Matthew and St. Mark, with respect to the potion offered to our Lord upon the cross. St. Matthew, he observes, tells us, they gave him vinegar, mingled with gall, ökvc μetà xoλñs peμyμévov, (Matt. xxvii. 34.) St. Mark, that they gave him —loμvpvioμévov olvov, (Mark xv. 24.) Schoetgen would reconcile the two passages by saying, ut myrrha una cum felle dicatur admixta potui, atque vinum fuisse acidum, quod indistincte vinum, et acetum appellari solet. He then goes on to shew, that the sour wine was indiscriminately named wine or vinegar; and the wine offered to our Lord might in like manner be called either wine or vinegar.

I cannot but conclude, after an attentive perusal of these and some other criticisms, that the simplest mode of interpreting the passages in question is the best, as being equally consistent and satisfactory. The first potion was probably given to our Lord in derision; the second, the stupifying draught usually administered to criminals; and the third called for from the sufferings of the moment. The hyssop mentioned by St. John in the next verse, may perhaps be considered as possibly to allude to one of the types, which were permitted to point out Christ as the typical paschal lamb. The Jews always commenced this feast by the eating of bitter herbs dipped in vinegar, which was considered as emblematical of purity: see Psalm li. 7.

It must be observed, that in Matt. xxvii. 34, instead of oog, many MSS. read oivov. The posca, or common drink of the Roman soldiers, was known by each name: they both convey the same sense (c).

24 ON THE SUPERSCRIPTION ON THE CRoss.

The

The Christian world is deeply indebted to the accurate and learned Dr. Townson, for his ingenious criticism on the title placed by Pilate on the cross. apparent discrepancy between the accounts of this title given by the Evangelists, had been urged as an objection against the inspiration and veracity of the sacred writers. The superscription on the cross was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin; and as the Evangelists all mention the title differently, Dr. Townson conjectured that it was possible it might have slightly varied in each language. As St. Luke wrote for the Gentiles in Achaia, it is probable that he would prefer mentioning the Greek inscription. As St. Matthew addressed the Jews, it is likely therefore that he should use the Hebrew: and as St. Mark principally wrote to the Romans, he would naturally give the Latin inscription. I have observed in my arrangement the order proposed by Dr. Townson. He remarks. the Evangelists all mention this superscription, but every one with some difference, except in the last words, The King of the Jews.

(c) See Archbishop Laurence's Sermon on Excess in Philological Speculation, p. 39, notes. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 158, and part ii. p. 127-8. Schoetgen, Hora Hebraicæ, vol. i. p. 236. Adam Clarke's Commentary. Horne's Critical Introduction, second edition, vol. iii. p. 115.

Mark xv. 26. the superscription of his accusation,

Matt. xxvii,

37.

And set up over his head his accusation written,

We may reasonably suppose St. Matthew to have recited the Hebrew :

THIS IS

JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

And St. John the Greek:

JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS. If it should be asked, why the Nazarene was omitted in the Hebrew, and we must assign a reason for Pilate's humour, perhaps we may thus account for it: He might be informed that Jesus in Hebrew denoted a Saviour, (John xi. 49— 51), and as it carried more appearance of such an appellative, or general term, by standing alone, he might choose, by dropping the epithet, The Nazarene, to leave the sense so ambiguous, that it might be thus understood:

THIS IS

A SAVIOUR, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Pilate, as little satisfied with the Jews as with himself, on that day, meant the inscription, which was his own, as a dishonour to the nation; and thus set a momentous verity before them, with as much design of declaring it, as Caiaphas had of prophesying, that Jesus should die for the people, (John xi. 49–51.) The ambiguity not holding in Greek, the Nazarene might be there inserted in scorn again of the Jews, by denominating their King from a city which they held in the utmost contempt, (John i. 46.)

Let us now view the Latin. It is not assuming much to suppose, that Pilate would not concern himself with Hebrew names, nor risk an impropriety in speaking or writing them. It was thought essential to the dignity of a Roman magistrate, in the times of the Republic, not to speak but in Latin on public occasions, (Valerius Maximus, b. ii. c. ii. § 2.) of which spirit Tiberius the Emperor retained so much, that in an oration to the senate, he apologized for using a Greek word; and once, when they were drawing up a decree, advised them to erase another that had been inserted in it. (Sueton. in Tiberi, c. 71. The two words were monopoly and emblem.) And though the magistrates in general were then become more condescending to the Greeks, they retained this point of state with regard to other nations, whose languages they esteemed barbarous, and would give themselves no trouble of acquiring. Pilate indeed, according to St. Matthew, asked at our Lord's trial, "Whom will ye that I release unto you, Barabbas, or Jesus, which is called Christ?" And again, "What shall I do with Jesus, which is called Christ?" But I judge this to be related, as the interpreter by whom he spake delivered it, in Hebrew.-(See Wolfius on Matt. xxvii. 2.) For if the other Evangelists have given his exact words, he never pronounced the name of Jesus, but spake of him all along by a periphrasis: "Will ye that I release unto you The King of the Jews?" "What will ye then, that I shall do unto Him whom ye call The King of the Jews?" Thus he acted in conference with the Rulers, and then ordered a Latin inscription, without mixture of foreign words, just as St. Mark repeats it:

THE KING OF THE JEWS,

which is followed by St. Luke, only that he has brought down This is, from the above superscription, as having a common reference to what stood under it.

THIS IS

THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Jerusalem.

Jerusalem.

and put it on the cross. And the writing was
in letters of Greek,

John xix. 19."

Lukexxiii. 38.

JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF John xix. 19.

THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mat.xxvii. 37.

This title then read many of the Jews: for the John xix. 20. place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Then said the Chief Priests of the Jews to Pi- John xix. 21. late, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

Pilate answered, What I have written I have John xix. 22. written.

It is very possible that a better account may be given of the three forms of the inscription; but I think I am well founded in asserting that there were variations in it, and that the shortest was that of St. Luke, in the Latin.-Townson's Works, vol. i. p. 199.

S. Reger has published a dissertation on the title on the cross, and comes nearly to the same conclusions as Townson, who does not however refer to, nor appear to have seen, his treatise. He supposes that the inscription varied in each language, and that they might have been written on three several tablets in this manner:

He mentions many opinions on the imagined difficulty-" Alii enim duos Evangelistas Matthæum et Lucam duo verba ovTóc lσri, non ex titulo descripsisse, sed sententiæ perficiendæ gratiâ adjecisse. Alii vero Marcum et Johannem dicta verba neglexisse; præterea tres reliquos cognomen Nazareni; Marcum et Lucam vero Nomen proprium JESUS omisisse, quamobrem ex omnium Evangelistarum descriptionibus tres conformes formant inscriptiones, hoc modo: 1. ΠΠ οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζάραιος ὁ

Baoiλevç 'Iovdaiwv. Hic est Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judæorum-See the Dissertation ap. Crit. Sac. vol. xi. p. 241, &c. &c.

MARK XV. part of ver. 22. and ver. 26.

22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, the place of a skull.

26 And-was written over

LUKE Xxiii. ver. 38.

38 And a superscription also was written over him-THIS IS The king OF THE JEWS.

JOHN xix. part of ver. 18.

18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side

one

Jerusalem.

Luke xxiii.34.

SECTION XVIII.

Christ prays for his Murderers.

LUKE Xxiii. part of ver. 34.

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

SECTION XIX.

The Soldiers divide and cast Lots for the Raiment of Christ.

MATT. XXVii. 35, 36.

part of ver.

Mat. xxvii. 35.
John xix. 23.

LUKE XXiii.

MARK XV. 24, 25.
34. JOHN XIX. 23, 24.

And they crucified him 25.

с

Then the soldiers, when they had crucified c Matt. xxvii. Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to

25 ON THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.

He hangs upon the cross, for us, and for our salvation! The Son of God dies for the restoration of man! The manifested God, who was present at the creation of this scene of his glory; who, for the sins of one generation of man, brought the deluge of waters upon the earth; He who was seen in the firmament, commanding the fire to descend upon the cities of the Plain; the dweller between the cherubim, the form which tabernacled in the moving flame, guiding his people through the wilderness; the King of glory, the Lord of angels, the Ruler of the universe, "the man that was the fellow of Jehovah," the future Judge of the world, He hangs upon the cross and offers himself a willing sacrifice for the sins of an offending world. That this holy and mighty Being should die as a man, amidst the indignities and cruel mockings of the higher as well as of the lower ranks of his people, for the sins of those who pierced him, and of all who in ages to come should believe in this wonderful atonement, is a mystery so truly sublime, that the intellectual powers of man, while in the body, cannot fully comprehend its effects and benefits. The wonderful and holy Being, whose mysterious death we are now contemplating, is revealed to us, not merely as the Lord of mankind, but as the superior of angels. Evil spirits

35.